PATEL NISHABEN KANTIBHAI Vs. SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Learned advocate Mr. Sunil Patel waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. At the request of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today itself.

(2.) THE petitioner is a lady who has obtained divorce as per the customs prevailing in her community. She was married to one Patel Vipulbhai Arvindbhai on 27th December, 1997. She thereafter applied for the passport to the respondents which was issued on 17th April, 1998, which is to expire on 16th April, 2008. On the strength of the said passport, she went with her husband to Kenya. However, since the relations between the couple got strained, they decided to have divorce in accordance with the customs prevailing in Patel community to which they belonged. They executed Deed of Divorce on 17th May, 2002. The petitioner thereafter returned to her native place with a child. She now intends to obtain immigration visa in her maiden name and for that purpose, she approached the respondents for carrying out necessary corrections in her name in the passport. However, the passport authority i.e., respondent no. 1 insisted that she should produce Divorce Deed authenticated by the Court. Hence, this petition.

(3.) MR . Rashmi Johari learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in the petitioner's community customary divorce is permissible and she has obtained divorce in accordance with the customs. Hence, the document produced by her, which is duly notarized, is valid to prove divorce and to enable the respondent authorities to carry out necessary corrections in her name in the passport. She wants correction to be made in accordance with the school leaving certificate wherein her name is shown Patel Nishaben Kantibhai. She has further submitted that the learned Single Judge of this Court in identical circumstances has laid down that the passport authority cannot insists upon production of Divorce Deed authenticated by the Court and in view of the same, according to her, the respondent authority cannot ask her to produce such authenticated deed before carrying out correction. Mr. Sunil Patel has not controverted the submissions made by Ms. Johari in view of the judgment of this Court.